My theory of personality types

[Kimani]

I have a website that I was going to promote but since I cant post that I'll just post my thesis from it. All feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Math and synergy can be used to understand the human condition. Metaphysics and modern psychology are explored using a formula. This formula transcends those beliefs.

Archetypes are primal symbols of people. These same archetypes are building blocks in determining personalites. Many individual archetypes are found in people at the same time / over a lifetime. These archetypes seperately show fragments of people's unconscious minds. These archetypes combined display a large part or portion of the unconscious mind. When organized into groups of two they spell out psychological conditions. What seems random at first becomes very familiar when placed in a different context. Archetypes are primal and 1-dimensional. Civilized man is 2-dimensional.
There are six archetypes in this equation. Each archetype represents a distinctive trait. The Child lacks restraint. The Hero is vulnerable. The Mother is empathetic and comforting. The Shadow is a symbol of apathy. The Trickster lacks morals and standards. The Wise Old Man is insightful.

The six archetypes are divided into three sets. There are two archetypes in each set. The combination of the two archetypes in each set results in a model for psychological conditions. What makes people unique and special is determined by what archetypes are found in them the most.

There are eleven psychological conditions / types used in this concept. They are asperger's syndrome, bipolar 1, bipolar 2, cyclothymia, avoidant, codependency, dependency, borderline, histrionic, narcissism, and sociopathy. The similar elements of these conditions unify them. They form an entity. These entities are used to define an individual. A person will gravitate towards one of these three entities much more than any of the others. Three characters are used to symbolize humanity. Society is divided into three essential segments.

Artistry, Professionalism, Opportunism


The Designer, The Professional, The Charmer


The Designer
Archetypes: The Hero - vulnerable, troubled
The Wise Old Man - mentor / guide
Tendencies: withdrawn, analytical, creative
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: composing, equating, calculating
Conditions: Asperger's Syndrome, Bipolar Spectrum

The Professional
Archetypes: The Child - unconditional love, submission
The Mother - nurturing, devoted
Tendencies: generosity, dedication, sacrifice, humility
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: consoling, comforting, compromising, estimating
Conditions: Avoidant, Codependency, Dependency

The Charmer
Archetypes: The Shadow - back-stabbing
The Trickster - devious, sneaky
Tendencies: impulsive, manipulative, egocentric
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: enticing, seducing, tempting, exploiting
Conditions: Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissism, Sociopathy

[Kopji]

This is more like a religion than a theory: It offers simplistic and formulaic responses to complex issues. It is more than a little circular, and 'begs the question'. When you use words like 'devious' for example, does that include someone's behavior who was trying to escape danger? So at least to my reading, you seem to already have some set conclusions and are looking for evidence to support it.

Of concern is a tendency to delegate mental illness to some kind of personal choice or inclination that could be solved by making better decisions or following your theory's formula or advice. This part seems potentially dangerous.

But on a friendlier tone:
How do you think your theory will be useful in providing answers or solving problems?

[Deleet]

This is a philosophy forum. You're attempting to do science, and thus, you should have posted in the science forum. Since the theory has no evidence behind it and it does not have any immediate appeal to me, I don't believe it.

[Kimani]

Kopji: The Trickster the symbol for devious behavior tends to be mischievous. In the way Carl Jung defined it the Trickster is not too often just using devious behavior to escape danger but instead to make trouble and confusion.

To answer your question I think this concept puts a more positive spin on personality types / disorders and it helps promote individuality.

[Laurentius]

From Philosophy to Science & Skepticism.

[SteveP]

This reminds me of my old boss who had done management courses and would say to me things like "...ah but you're a 'details man', and I'm a 'big picture guy'" as if it were some profound insight into our respective personalities.

To which I would think (but never said) "I'm a 'details man' because that's what you're paying me for, and you're a 'big picture guy' because you own the company and that's your responsibility" :rolleyes:

[Guillaume]

All you have is a non parsimonious, non empirically tested version of the Big Five !

The Wise Man : Introversion + Openness to experience
The Hero : Neuroticsm
The Child : Introversion
The Mother : Agreeableness
The Shadow : Lack of conscientiousness
The Trickster : Lack of conscientiousness

[bilby]

This is a philosophy forum. You're attempting to do science, and thus, you should have posted in the science forum. Since the theory has no evidence behind it and it does not have any immediate appeal to me, I don't believe it.

Attempting to do science perhaps. Succeeding, no.

To quote the great philosopher, Sideshow Bob, "Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

[WCH]

Careful with your terms... you're using Jungian terms to mean things contrary to what Jung meant by them. That could lead to confusion.

In particular, your use of the word "Shadow": in Jung, the Shadow isn't an archetype with which anybody identifies. On the contrary, it's the repressed aspects of the Self which one hates and externalizes... so the Shadow of someone who values freedom might be overly controlling, and the Shadow of someone who values chastity might be promiscuous. You're using it to mean something quite different. Actually it isn't clear what you mean, as it isn't explained, but there's no way that the Jungian sense of the term would fit.

So, as a suggestion... maybe The Harlequin would be more to your tastes?

Also, I dislike how slanted your descriptions of the three types are. Specifically, it seems very negative when describing The Charmer, very positive when describing The Professional, and mixed when describing The Designer. A better way of doing it would be to balance it in each case... so for each type, show a way in which it can be expressed positively and a way in which it can be expressed negatively (the "old man" archetype, which Jung calls Senex, can be expressed either as a wise old man who guides the young and passes on his wisdom, or as the hater of youth who wants kids to get off his damn lawn. Gandalf versus Captain Hook, for instance -- both are Senex).

[cpollett]

I think the personality type classification problem is an interesting game. Here is how I think it is played:

The audience chooses some small number which will be the total number of personality types, say 7 or 8. The choice of number is probably related to the magic number of Miller:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/

The classifier then must partition all people into eight groups. For each group there must be a simple algorithm the audience can use to determine if a person belongs to that group. The classifier must also give a simple algorithm that roughly predicts the behavior of a person based on his group.

If the classifier convinces the audience that his two algorithms are good then he win the game by getting lots of book sales. Otherwise, he loses by being forgotten.

[WCH]

@cpollett
If they talk about their system as definitive and absolute, then I totally agree with you. 100% bullshit. It's possible to have a more general, less absolute system. Jung's theory of personality types is like this... he says that it's a model which can be useful, but that it's not a be-all and end-all, and shouldn't be taken as such. Then those Myers-Briggs dumbasses got a hold of it and turned it into the kind of system you're talking about: their system uses his terms, but not always in context, and definitely running against the spirit of his psychology.

His system basically asserts that there are two main dimensions to our understanding of the world... the Rational Axis (on which Thinking and Feeling are the poles: "Feeling" here is an evaluative term, so your sense for how "good" or "bad" something is, whereas "Thinking" is analytical) and the Irrational Axis (on which Intuition and Sensation are the poles: "Intuition" means you come at new ideas directly from the unconscious, whereas "Sensation" means you come at new ideas through experimentation). He further asserts that everyone is better at one of these four things than at any of the others (although how much better varies), and that whichever it is, the opposite end of that axis will be weak for you. So, if you're a Thinker (philosophers), you probably don't think of things in terms of "good" or "bad," and if you're a Sensation Type (scientists), you probably think mysticism is a load of hooey.

I like that system, because it's about general trends, not absolutes, and works based on position on a grid. Most other systems of personality types are much more rigid and seem to be based entirely on generalizations from too small a sample size of people.

[RSM]

Failure to understand Myers-Briggs is no excuse to call them dumb-asses. You've made something out of Jung's theory, too, that he didn't do. Matter of fact, I can't see the difference between your Jungian theory and Myers-Briggs.

[WCH]

The main difference is "general framework which isn't really supposed to be true in a literal sense" and something based upon averages and numbers, nailed down, and used as a way to oversimplify behaviour. Basically, his concepts are there, but they're being used for something completely different. I'd get more into specifics, but I've got a presentation to prepare for.

[LukeS]

welcome.

You could compose a public poll, and try to predict our jobs.

[figuer]

I don't understand why this thread is named 'My theory of personality types". These things are all derivative. If there is anything new it is so trivial that it seems undiscernable.

[Kimani]

You dont need Carl Jung's theories to reach the conclusions that I reached. The archetype aspect is interesting but it's not required. An understanding of the DSM-IV is the only real essential for all of this.

That being said I think you can apply the DSM to the archetype theory so it seems as if they are saying the same thing. The archetype theory is just another way of looking at the DSM. It's almost like understanding what someone is saying in a different language. It's a translation.

[WCH]

Eh? Archetypes have nothing whatsoever to do with the DSM... the first edition of the DSM came out in the 50s, way after Jung.

[Kimani]

The whole point of my theory is to say that when archetypes are combined they are the same as personality types found on the DSM-IV. Avoidant, codependency, and dependency are equivalent to certain specific archetypes. Borderline, histrionic, narcissism and socipathy are equivalent to certain other specific archetypes. I've layed it all out.

The Designer
Archetypes: The Hero - vulnerable, troubled
The Wise Old Man - mentor / guide
Tendencies: withdrawn, analytical, creative
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: composing, equating, calculating
Conditions: Asperger's Syndrome, Bipolar Spectrum

The Professional
Archetypes: The Child - unconditional love, submission
The Mother - nurturing, devoted
Tendencies: generosity, dedication, sacrifice, humility
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: consoling, comforting, compromising, estimating
Conditions: Avoidant, Codependency, Dependency

The Charmer
Archetypes: The Shadow - back-stabbing
The Trickster - devious, sneaky
Tendencies: impulsive, manipulative, egocentric
Talents / Dominant Capabilities: enticing, seducing, tempting, exploiting
Conditions: Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissism, Sociopathy

[WCH]

No, just, no. Learn what you're talking about first, please.

[Kimani]

I know what I'm talking about. I've studies the archetypes extensively. I'm just putting a different spin on them or showing them in a different light.

[WCH]

I don't think you even know what an archetype is, let alone the details of what each means.

[Simen]

This is utterly useless in every regard. It's not science proper, but neither is it decent philosophy. It's a simple labeling of various personality traits, with no rationale for why we ought to use this labeling, either in scientific or pragmatic terms. It's on par with astrology.

[Togo]

This is utterly useless in every regard. It's not science proper, but neither is it decent philosophy. It's a simple labeling of various personality traits, with no rationale for why we ought to use this labeling, either in scientific or pragmatic terms. It's on par with astrology.

Or, um... any other theory of personality types. They're all fairly arbitrary, when you get right down to it.